But people can't attest to the perfection of something they have never read, KFC.

I understand what you're saying. Yes when the NT writers were pointing to the authenticy of the scriptures they were talking of the OT scriptures. When Paul wrote to Timothy he said...."From a child you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise unto slvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus". 2 Tim 3:15. H was talking OT scriptures only.

The bible makes it plain that is is not merely inspirig literature or a fallible record of God speaking but that is in the infallible Word of God. Two verses speak to the heart of the matter, 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. The former reads:

All scripture is inspired by God nd profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. The word "inspired" is a translation of the Greek word theopneustos, meaning God breathed. The origin of scripture is God, not man, it is God breathed. Notice "all" scripture.

The second verse in Peter says: For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. This also confirms that the writers were moved by God to record that which God desired. God used each individual writer and his personality to accomplish a divinely inspired work.

Since God is behind the writings and since He is perfect the result must be infallible. If it were not infallible we could be left with God inspired error. That's not good.

The human authors of scripture wrote spontaneously using their own minds and experiences yet their words were not merely the words of men but actually the words of God. God's control was always with them in their writings with the result being the bible....the Word of God in the words of men.

Now having said that look what Peter says of Paul in 2 Peter 3:16: As also in all his (Paul) epistles speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrestle as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destructions."

Did you catch what Peter was saying? He was saying the Pauls writings were to be put on par with the other writings of scripture.

You state the differences in translations yourself. Are they all inerrant?

No one manuscript or translation is inspired, only the original. But for all intents and purposes they are virtually inspired since with today's great number of manuscripts available for scrutiny we can be assured that what we hold in our hands today is quite reliable and the inspired Word of God translated in our own language..

2 years (6 class hours per year) of religion courses at a private Methodist school,

Ok are you familair with Charles Wesley who was one of the founders of Methodism? He said this:

The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels bad men or devils or of God. Therefore:

1. It could not be the invention of good men or angels for they neither would nor could make a book and tell lies all the time they were writing it saying, "Thus saith the Lord," when it was their own invention,

2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils for they would not make a book which commands all duty forbids all sin and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.

3. Therefore I draw this conclusion that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration.

(Robert W. Burtner and Robert E. Chiles, A Compendium of Wesley's Theology p. 20.)

Were you aware that Wesley also liked to dress up topless native americans and teach them to dance around the maypole for him? LOL. I'm not Methodist, not by a long shot. Dealing with the Methodist 'authority' and eventually being asked to leave (read: ejected from) school took care of that. YOu'll note that Wesley states the Bible is "inspired" not inerrant.

Re: Inspiration, how can you tell which is inspired? You have to remember that it wasn't Paul, Peter or anyone who wrote the Bible who decided that those particular books got into the Christian canon. Not only did people read our books, but they read a LOT of apocraphal stuff, too.

So you rely upon their inspiration as well. Didn't Paul say "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets"? Who decides for you which folks were a prophet? Can you name those people that did? I can't.

There's a really good article on the development of the Christian Bible on wikipedia. I think if you read it you'll find that you aren't putting your faith in the people who spoke and wrote the words originally, rather a LOT of very political people who were constantly fighting each other about what should be considered inspired.

I can't find anything that says Wesley considered the Bible inerrant. Here's a Methodist Theological Society paper in inerrancy. If I recall correctly, Methodists either take no official stand at all, or discard inerrancy outright. You'll find that Methodists are a pretty diverse bunch. I went to a Methodist church or two that featured speaking in tongues, believe it or not.

P.S. There's a good article at wikipedia about biblical inerrancy, too.

Were you aware that Wesley also liked to dress up topless native americans and teach them to dance around the maypole for him?

No, but sounds kinda interesting. Why would he do this? I read alot about Wesley especially the story of Suzannah years ago....what a woman!!

I'm not Methodist, not by a long shot

that's good, keep it that way. They used to be very good but have lost their way. I heard there's an on fire Methodist church in Bulgaria that is nothing like here in the states. So I would have no problem with checking that one out.

Dealing with the Methodist 'authority' and eventually being asked to leave (read: ejected from) school took care of that.

hmmmm sounds like you've got some rebel in you. Welcome to the club. I have a definite Barean Spirit (Acts 17).

wikipedia.

I skimmed it but have been told not to go too deeply into this source. Notice that you can edit the page to anything you want and go back. it stays until the next person changes it. Seen this happen and wasn't too happy about that. I'm from the old school.....I like my old books. I have stuff going back to the first century for references.

I think if you read it you'll find that you aren't putting your faith in the people who spoke and wrote the words originally,

well I'm not exactly, my faith is in God and his ability to give us HIS revealed word.

can't find anything that says Wesley considered the Bible inerrant.

me either except what I wrote above and again I'm thinking if God inspired it and was behind it then it would be infallible in it's original language remember.

You'll find that Methodists are a pretty diverse bunch. I went to a Methodist church or two that featured speaking in tongues, believe it or not.

Yes, I'm sure and the speaking of tongues is spreading like wildfire. I don't believe it's of God and I do believe is all about Charismatic Chaos. But that's another blog.

P.S. There's a good article at wikipedia about biblical inerrancy, too.

Thanks I'll check it out.

Enjoying our chat Baker, but I think we scared off everyone else.

check out this link.....it goes back to the 1500's but also has my favorite guy of today...John MacArthur.

Link

Well, micro-evolution can be as quick as a single season, up to few hundred years. Macro-evolution, however, takes thousands of years. That's MANY human generations! No wonder we never saw any major changes. It's simply too slow for us to see it! Other example, it's reality this time. Did you know that earth is changing it's land masses constantly? I mean that. It never stopped at all! Yet it looks same to us century after century. It's simply too slow for us to even see it! It's same for evolution. It's like landmasses, only moving about inch per year. Some places is even slower.

Yeah, I have seen this rational before, but it still doesn't answer the question of what mechanism is being used to go from one speicies to another. If I have two dogs and they mate, and make new dogs, and then those dogs mate, at what point do I stop getting dogs? No matter how long it takes, somehow the dogs with X number of chromosomes have to start mating and getting some other creature with a different number. There is no magical fraction in between that you can use to explain away the transition.

The mechanism by which this occurs has never been explained. Until it is, I'm not buying it.

It's a nice idea, but science requires proof.

By your argument I could simply say this: "Don't believe in god? Well, you just haven't waited long enough for the proof that he exists!"

Your statement is no more scientifically worthwhile than anything any religion has ever said.

It has been explained, and it's call 'speciation'. Feel free to read up on it. There is genetic drift over time, and when a species in different ecosystems are separated and their genetic makeup drifts independantly, eventually the differences will be so great that they won't even be able to mate any more.

You're making the same silly demand that others make. You want to see a process that takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years right now, or you won't believe it.


Why don't you people doubt geology, then? When someone tells you that rain can wash away a mountain given enough time, do you doubt it? Do you demand to see it happen right now? Of course not, you see short term effects of erosion, and you put two and two together.

Well, you see the short term effects of natural selection, but you refuse to put two and two together because you believe it makes some sort of statement about God. It really doesn't, though. God can make things however God wants to, and for a human, who is to god as a pissant is to us, to tell God how he can and can't create species is a tad arrogant.

P.S. Taking my time with that link, KFC. Lots to look into there. Thanks.

Why don't you people doubt geology, then? When someone tells you that rain can wash away a mountain given enough time, do you doubt it? Do you demand to see it happen right now? Of course not, you see short term effects of erosion, and you put two and two together. Well, you see the short term effects of natural selection, but you refuse to put two and two together because you believe it makes some sort of statement about God. It really doesn't, though. God can make things however God wants to, and for a human, who is to god as a pissant is to us, to tell God how he can and can't create species is a tad arrogant.

That's what eventually convinced me that evolution is very easily the way the Lord may (or may not) have created the world. You can't see the long-term effects yet.

And KFC - none of those prophets told me evolution wasn't true. Once God tells me it through his current prophet, then I'll believe.

Oh come on. Erosion is very simple to explain at the lowest (chemcial) level. Hell, you can even see it in statues and structures over short periods of time. The underlying process scales very easily over large timescales.

The same cannot neccesarily be said for speciation or the other tenants of evolution. If you like wikipedia -check out the article on macroevolution.

The argument is still there - the debate exists as to whether macro and micro work on the same principles or different ones. If its different, then they don't know the mechanism by which it happens. If its the same, then they simply trot out the old line "millions of years! why ANYTHING could happen over that kinda time!" and wave their hands. Just like that and we proved it!

Neither one is in a firm enough place scientificially to be treated as seriously as it is by you and many others.

Of course you quickly switched over to that nice ad hominem. Good job there. Who told you I even believe in god? I never said anything about that. If you look at my posts, you'll see none have any sort of pro-religion sentiment - in fact in that last one I was pretty much deriding both equally. The truth is, you don't need to go anywhere near religion to cast doubt on macro evolution, but that is how people like you always have to frame the debate in order to make the outcome obvious. After all, "us sensible people don't want to have anything to do with those religious freaks, right? So our only choice is evolution!" What a huge cop out. Those aren't the only two choices, sports fans; and modern science is truly in a sad state of affairs if it is. With a view that narrow, who needs religion to kill science!

I don't think religion or creation has any place in schools, but neither does half-explanation of very speculative science. If they presented the material in fair and complete terms, and admitted that the evidence is very weak (if existant) for the macro side of things, then I wouldn't have a problem. Even better, don't bother teaching it until a higher level - when the full thrust of a very complicated subject can be examined in detail. You aren't teaching highly theoretical and cutting-edge astro-physics to high schoolers, are you?

As it is, this article (whatever its motivations) seems to me very accurate. People believe and defend the "millions of years" hand-waving as blindly as anyone follows religious dogma; and they do it without a full understanding of what they are saying - just like people who don't know the actual tenants of their own religion. What makes it worse, is that it is in a field of study that isn't supposed to have that kind of thing going on. Religion is supposed to be based on blind faith, science is supposed to be about challenging and asking for further proof and study before any conclusions are made. Yet anyone that questions the sacred cow of macro evolution is jumped upon as a heretic. Same with the issue of global climate change.

For all the calls of "rational science to the rescue!", I see just as many people getting caught up in blind zealotism on the evolution side, and it appears just as irrational. I would expect that from some religious fanatics, but in a culture that is supposed to be about searching for proof, answers, and overwhelming evidence? Come on. The theory should always be suspect until it is proven - but you people are so eager to get rid of that "pesky religion stuff" that you trot it out as the grand undisputed explaination. "It's peerless! Only fools would disagree."

Yup, that is what they said about the sun revolving around the earth, and the world being flat. Good thing we've broadened our horizons since then . . . right?
*smirk*

Did someone here say the theory wasn't suspect? I don't recall preaching about the inerrancy of the theory of evolution. There are about as many camps on that side as there are denominations on the other. Looks like you have a bone to pick with someone, but sorry, it isn't me. Tell me a little bit about your mother... lol.

If you look back at science you'll find that we rooted out the effects of many things before we pinned down the processes. We were moving a hell of a lot of electrons around before we knew what electrons even were. We have been studying gravity for several hundred years now, and we have gotten quite good at predicting its effects and how to use it to our advantage. Surprise!! We still don't really know what it is technically.

So, frankly, I don't buy your argument. You are posing a straw man when you pretend that people aren't keeping an open mind. I just wrote an article on intelligent design the other day that was pretty darn critical of both sides of the evolution/creation issue.

Now, granted, if you have a theory that has been poo-pooed by the scientific elite, pipe up, I'd love to hear it. Until you come up with something better, I don't see any reason not to work with the theories we have.

I'm not coming out of left field - my points (and bones to pick) were taken directly from your post:

1. The comparison between geology and evolution is specious, at best, since one is vastly more simple and better undersood than the other. This comparison is in your post - I didn't get it from nowhere.

Did someone here say the theory wasn't suspect?

2. You claim in your previous post:

It has been explained,

- so I think it was you saying it wasn't suspect. I was simply saying it was. If you do think it is suspect, you shouldn't go around saying things like "it has been explained" and talking down to people as if they are insane for thinking otherwise. That is how your post comes across.

3. Your post included:

but you refuse to put two and two together because you believe it makes some sort of statement about God.

Thereby insinuated that my argument and motivations had something to do with god, which was a total assumption - that as it turns out was totally false.

So the bone to pick was indeed with you and your post - for those three reasons.

As for my argument, I am definetly not pretending people aren't keeping an open mind. I KNOW they aren't. I just went and read your intellegent design post, and I think you said it best:

Many conflicts over evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are due to ignorance, arrogance, and dishonesty on both sides.

It would be a shame to allow an objective, creative topic of evolutionary discussion to be hijacked and undermined by dishonest people on both sides of the evolutionary debate.

If these actions on both sides can't be defined as "not keeping an open mind" then I don't know what could be. Both sides are treating the issue with very closed thought processes, often without really understanding it well. Isn't this a true statement?

Anyway, I agree with what you are saying in the post you mentioned on ID. Apparently you are a regular, or admin or something? Maybe you are used to people here knowing what your position is on things? I am sorry that I do not (as a newcomer). Can you see how, from your post above, I would think you were blindly swallowing evolution hook line and sinker? (and therefore not "keeping an open mind"?)

No, no. You were saying that there was no explaination for speciation within evolutionary theory, and there is. That doesn't mean that it is the final "law". You proposed that they just skipped over that part, and in reality there is a lot of study involved.

In terms of the "open mind", what I said on my blog wasn't intended to describe the entire body of research on evolution. The most vocal people out there slugging it out with creationists, sure. There are no doubt the same tenured "believe me or perish" ivory tower folks out there too.

That doesn't mean that they will in the end accomplish anything. They never really do. All they do is stall discovery. All the while that they are making ape faces across the fence at creationists, there are reliable scientists doing real work.

I'm not an admin, no, but yes, I'm a regular. I made the wrong assumption about your perspective and I apologize for that. You have to understand that your statement "Have they observed one creature turning into another one?" isn't really promoting you as being that deep into the argument.

Granted, you didn't come off as religious as I thought, but you were making the same tired argument that I hear over and over, and that KFC made as a joke with her tomatos to watermelons thing, so I just assumed you were part of the camp. I've been really hard on Atheists, too, and I've been hard on religious people, and I've been hard on about everyone for the reasons that you are stating about scepticism.

What I was addressing was your assertion that the theory of evolution didn't have an explaination for speciation. Obviously they do. Is it proven beyond the shadow of a doubt? Nope, but does it have to be?

My point was simply that it doesn't scale into something that undeniably and automatically causes drastic changes in species (of the lizards to birds variety). Erosion does scale like this into "mountain destroying". Speciation doesn't.

Speciation, genetic drift, natural selection - all tenants of microevolution and observable on that level.

So you get some birds - throw in some speciation. Genetic drift is one way the speciation occurs. Now you have two sets of birds that can't mate, but are otherwise mostly the same. Different species, but still basically the same bird. Now throw in some natural selection. Then you have these birds, and they maybe have some different beaks. But they are still birds.

What have we got after all that? Lots of birds that are mostly the same. They are still birds. Anything more than that requires some serious imagination.

Then there is macro evolution - with perhaps 2 "camps"

One is that we can imagine the mechanisms of micro evolution already discussed, over a few million years, will magically produce these drastic changes. I can imagine lots of things that sound very plausible, but that doesn't make them true.

The other is that micro evolution can only take you so far, and that macro evolution has a different set of mechanisms that allow the drastic changes. Oh, but we don't have the faintest idea what they are - we haven't found those.

So thats all you get - the "million year imagining" or the "different but who the hell knows" theories. Excuse me if I'm not impressed by the air-tight nature of this science.

There has to be some mechanism in there for macro to work - until that is found its all idle speculation. AND idle speculation does not good science make. We certainly shouldn't be buying that one so easily. This is why I'm not buying it and am very skeptical.

So go ahead and BELEIVE whatever you want. But until some better-supported theories or proof is developed - its still just your belief.

I think saying "Have they observed one creature turning into another one?" is a perfectly valid question (whether you think it "promotes me to being deep in the argument" or not) - since that is the ONE part of the whole thing they don't have evidence on. In fact, if you do get deep in the argument, that is the one question you have left unanswered by the theories - they haven't found the one or many mechanisms that would neccesarily cause that.

I don't feel a compulsion to accept the current thinking until something better pops up. Its perfectly valid to not buy it without proof - even with the lack of a better explaination. Much better to just accept "we don't know" than to believe something very flawed.

think saying "Have they observed one creature turning into another one?" is a perfectly valid question (whether you think it "promotes me to being deep in the argument" or not) - since that is the ONE part of the whole thing they don't have evidence on. In fact, if you do get deep in the argument, that is the one question you have left unanswered by the theories - they haven't found the one or many mechanisms that would neccesarily cause that.I don't feel a compulsion to accept the current thinking until something better pops up. Its perfectly valid to not buy it without proof - even with the lack of a better explaination. Much better to just accept "we don't know" than to believe something very flawed.

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. I think...N.B.I. you should really stop being an anon and join us here as a regular. I actually thought you were my son because he shows up from time to time as an anonymous and he has alot to say regarding this issue. He's working on his Ph.D in Neruro Science and is really into the world of Molecular Biology living as a lab rat mostly. But he said it wasn't him, and one comment you made in the beginning he would have never made as a Scientist.

I say this not only because I agree with what you're saying but also that you've put much thought into it and present an intelligent argument. Having said that, I also enjoy reading and dishing it out with Baker for the same reasons as well even tho we are not in total agreement most of the time.

I still go back to what Darwin said, about transitional fossils. He said that unless these fossils are found, his theory cannot be proven and it will remain just that.....a theory. I do believe it's a way to get God out of the picture and I believe that Darwin was in pursuit of that. His own wife Emma accused him of this. To date, none have been found. But also wouldn't we see creatures walking around half in and half out as well? We don't see that either. And the zeal seen in the defense of such a theory I believe is akin to what we see in the world of religion.

And KFC - none of those prophets told me evolution wasn't true. Once God tells me it through his current prophet, then I'll believe.

this is a classic tenant of unbelief. Unbelief is never satisfied. Unbelief always wants more evidence. Always searching but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Have you ever read "these prophets?" These prophets will tell you that evolution is not true by backing up what they did know about God and his creative abilities. Keep in mind micro vs macro when you think on these things.

The bible is not a textbook of science. It does not purport to instruct us in matters of calculus, physics or chemistry. There are times tho when serious conflicts do emerge between theories inferred from science and biblical teching. If, for example, a scientist concludes that the origin of man is a comic accident then the scientist holds a position that is antithetical to the teching of Scripture. But the qauestion of man's origin can never be determined by the study of biology. The question of origin is a question of history. The biologist can describe how things could have happened but can never tell us how they happened. BTW......what current prophet? Are you Mormon?